this post was submitted on 11 Oct 2024
127 points (98.5% liked)
Asklemmy
43940 readers
387 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
There's fewer people in poverty now than at any point in history.
The world has always been getting better in global measures of health, food and education if you consider all of humanity.
I don’t think that’s actually true. Have the metrics for what we consider poverty changed and adapted with inflation and the perfecting of corporate wealth hoarding? “Poverty” is an ambiguous term, and relative poverty is real. That doesn’t show in a standard-line “poverty” metric. What was considered “extreme poverty” is the lowest, but that’s people living on under $1.90/day. I couldn’t even find information on that metric being updated to reflect the current high inflation and profit-explosion landscape.
Also: if you technically pull people out of poverty by outsourcing to the lowest paying, least labor regulated parts of the world, is the fact that extreme poverty went away in those areas even a good thing?
Check out Factfulness by Hans Rosling